Using qualitative behaviour assessment to explore the link between stockperson behaviour and dairy calf behaviour

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Applied

Animal

Behaviour

Science

j o u r n al ho me p ag e :w ww . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / a p p l a n i m

Using

qualitative

behaviour

assessment

to

explore

the

link

between

stockperson

behaviour

and

dairy

calf

behaviour

Kristian

Ellingsen

_,

_Grahame

_J.

_Coleman

_,

_Vonne

_Lund

_,

_Cecilie

_M.

_Mejdell

b_{TheUniversityofMelbourne,Melbourne3010,VIC,Australia}

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory:

Received28October2013

Receivedinrevisedform8January2014 Accepted21January2014

Availableonline28January2014

Keywords:

Qualitativebehaviourassessment Stockpersonbehaviour Dairycalfbehaviour Animalwelfare

Human–animalrelationship Structuralequationmodelling

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Dairyfarmingusuallyimpliescloseandfrequentcontactbetweenthestockpersonandthe animals.Agoodhuman–animalrelationship(HAR)isthereforeessentialforgoodanimal welfare.TofullyunderstandthequalityoftheHARboththestockpersonbehaviourandthe animals’reactiontothehandlerneedstobeassessed,astheymutuallyaffecteachother. Qualitativebehaviourassessment(QBA)hasduringthelastdecadebecomeamethodto assessanimalwelfarethroughscrutinyofanimalbodylanguage.Theapplicationofthis methodtocharacterizestockpersonbehaviour,ontheotherhand,isnovel.Thisstudy aimedto,throughtheuseofQBA,tocharacterizestockpersonbehaviourandtoportray thebodylanguagedairycalvesoftheanimalsinhis/hercare.Further,thestudytestedthe relationshipsbetweenstockpersonbehaviourandcalfbehaviourusingstructuralequation modelling(SEM).Theassessmentswereperformedin2006–2008on110Norwegiandairy farms.Thestockpersonsampleconsistedof79.6%malesand20.4%females,withamean ageof46years.Thedairycalves(includingyoungstock)weremostlyNorwegianRedand were3to298daysoldatthedayofobservation.TenitemsofthestockpersonQBAwere analysedthroughPrincipalcomponentanalysis.Thehandlingstylesthatemergedwere termedcalm/patient,dominating/aggressive,positiveinteractionsandinsecure/nervous. The31itemsofthecalfQBAwerealsoanalysedusingprincipalcomponentanalysisand revealedtwodimensionsofcalfbehaviourlabelledpos/negmoodandhigh/lowarousal. Basedontheexpectedrelationshipsbetweenstockpersonbehaviourandcalfbehavioura structuralmodelwasdevelopedandtestedusingSEM.Theanalysisrevealedthat stock-personswhohandletheircalvespatientlyandpetandcalmlytalktothemduringhandling haveanimalswithhigherlevelsofpositivemood,ascharacterizedbyhighscoresonQBA itemslikefriendlyandcontent.Stockpersonswithanervoushandlingstyle,orwhowere dominatingandaggressive,ontheotherhand,hadcalveswithmorenegativemood.These findingsareimportantastheyshowthedirectlinkbetweenhumanbehaviourandcalf behaviourandonceagainconfirmthesignificanceofgoodstockmanship.Theresultsalso highlighttheimportanceofpropertrainingandself-awarenessforthoseworkingwith livestock.

©2014TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierB.V.

∗ _{Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+4791702970/+4723216377.}

E-mailaddress:[email protected](K.Ellingsen). 1 _{Sadlypassedawayduringthecourseoftheproject.}

1. Introduction

1.1. Human–animalrelationship

Indairyfarming,thestockpersonisinfrequentandclose contact withhis/heranimals duringproceduressuchas 0168-1591©2014TheAuthors.Published by Elsevier B.V.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.01.011

Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

milking,cleaningandinspection.Thisisespeciallytruefor acountrylikeNorwaywhereproductionunitsaresmall (averagedairyherdsizeisin2013was24cows (Statistics-Norway,2013)andanimalsarekeptindoorsmostofthe year.

Agoodhuman–animalrelationship(HAR),heredefined as“thedegreeofrelatednessordistancebetweenthe ani-mal and the human, i.e., the mutual perception, which developsandexpressesitselfintheirmutualbehaviour” (EstepandHetts,1992,p.6)isthereforefundamentalto goodanimalwelfare.Avastnumberofpublicationshave been dedicated to the topic of HAR in various species, includingcompanion(e.g.Marinellietal.,2007;Ellingsen etal.,2010)andproductionsanimals(e.g.Colemanetal., 1998;Waiblingeretal.,2002;Breueretal.,2003).Whatis generallyfound,isthatanimalshavingapositivebondwith theircaretakeraresaferandeasiertohandle,whilelackof habituationtopeople,aswellasnegativehandlingwith shoutingandhittingleadstopooreranimalwelfare,more fear, acute and chronicstress (Hemsworthet al., 2000; Hemsworth,2003; Simensen,2004)and reduced repro-duction(Hemsworthetal.,1986).Studieshavealsoshown that a negative HAR leadsto decreased milkyield and increasedresidualmilkindairycattle(Rushenetal.,1999; Waiblingeretal.,2002).Ontheotherhand,calmtouching andtalkingtocattleduringmilkingleadstohighermilk yield(HemsworthandColeman,1998).

Ithasbeenknownforsometime thatamajorfactor influencingtheHARisthenatureofthedailyinteractions betweenthestockpersonandtheanimal(Hemsworthetal., 1981a,b), asstockperson behaviourdetermines the ani-mals’reactiontowardshumans(Waiblingeretal.,2006). During thelastdecadesa greatdeal ofworkhas there-fore beendone in thearea of HARand animal welfare assessmentinproductionanimalspecies(e.g.Rushenetal., 1999; Waiblinger et al.,2006; Bertenshaw et al., 2008; Windschnureretal.,2008;WelfareQuality,2009).Inthis processamethodcalledqualitativebehaviourassessment (QBA)hasundergoneextensivetestingand isprovinga timeefficientandvalidadditiontoanumberofthese ani-malwelfareassessmentprotocols.

1.2. Qualitativebehaviourassessment

QBA is an integrated assessment of the whole ani-mal where the animal’s body language is evaluated as anindicationoftheanimalwelfarestate(Wemelsfelder andLawrence,2001).Originally theQBAwasdeveloped bytheuseofspontaneousjudgementsinaprocesscalled FreeChoiceProfiling.Untrainedpersonnelwereaskedto observeanimalsforaperiodoftimeandthenwritedown thebehavioursormental statestheyfeltbestdescribed theanimals’status.Theobserversshowedhighagreement and the method had good repeatability and correlated wellwithotherbehaviouraland physiologicalmeasures of animal welfare (Wemelsfelder and Lawrence, 2001). Thescalewasthenfurtherdevelopedtoa pre-fixedlist ofdescriptorscontainingwordslikehappy,content, ner-vous,frustratedandaggressive,asseeninWelfareQuality® (Wemelsfelder et al., 2009a). The QBA has been vali-dated on a wide range of species including veal cattle

andcalves,dairycattle(RousingandWemelsfelder,2006; Wemelsfelder et al., 2009a), horses (Napolitano et al., 2008),pigs(Wemelsfelderetal.,2001)anddairybuffaloes (Napolitanoetal.,2012).UsingQBAtodescribe stockper-sonbehaviour,however,isanovelwayofcharacterizing handlingstyles.

1.3. Aims

UsingQBAonstockpersonbehaviour,thisstudyaimed tocharacterizedifferenthandlingstylesof stockpersons interactingwiththeirdairycalvesandyoungstock.Using QualitativeBehaviourAssessmentonthedairycalves,we alsosetouttoportraythebodylanguageoftheanimals. Haskelletal.(2003)suggestedtheuseQBAtoevaluatethe responseofdairycowstohumansandBrscicetal.(2009) statedthatQBAmaybesensitivetothequalityofhuman contact.Thefinal aimofthestudywastherefore, using structuralequationmodelling(SEM),todevelopandtesta modelshowinghowstockpersonbehaviourcorrelateswith thebehaviouroftheanimals.

2. Materialsandmethods

2.1. Datacollection

The current study is based onqualitative behaviour assessment of stockperson and dairy calves, including youngstockupto10monthsofage,conductedon110 Nor-wegiandairyfarmsbetweenJanuary2006andMarch2008. Allbehaviourregistrationswerecarriedoutbythesame observer,anexperiencedlivestockinspectorand agricul-turaladvisor.Farmswererandomlyselectedfromalistof dairyproducerscoveringpre-definedregionsofSouthern Norway. All selected farms were members of the Nor-wegianCattleHealthRecordingSystem(NCHRS).NCHRS commencednationally in1975 (Østerås etal., 2007)to guide farmers in management related issues, including feedingandbreeding.Membershipisnotmandatory,but 98.5%oftheNorwegiandairyherdsregularlyreportmilk yield,diseaseoccurrenceandtreatmentofindividual ani-mals(Tine,2012).Thestockpersonthatparticipatedwas theonewhoonadailybasismanagedthefarm’scalves andyoungstock.

Thestockpersonsampleconsistedof88(80.0%)males and 22 (20.0%) female, with a mean age of 46 years (SE±0.04).87 (79.1%)participantsweremarriedorhad apartnerand58(52.7%)hadchildren.13 (11.8%)ofthe respondentshadprimaryschoolastheirhighestlevelof finishededucation,73(66.4%)hadcompletedupper sec-ondary schooland 14 (12.7%) had universitycollege or universitydegrees.Educational informationwasmissing for10(9.1%)ofthesample.Thestockpersonswere gener-allyveryexperiencedwithdairycalves,asmeanyearsof experiencewas24.5(SE±1.22).

Thevast majority of the calvesincluded in theQBA wereNorwegianRed.RemainingcalveswereNorwegian Redcrossbreeds,Jerseys,Simmental,orthelocalbreeds NorwegianRedPolledCattleandBlacksidedTrønderand NordlandCattle.Themeannumberof calvesandyoung stockonthefarmsthatwereincludedinthestudywas31

(range10–120animals)andtheirageatthetimeofthevisit variedfrom3to298days.Ateachfarm,fivecalveswere observed.Thetestanimalswererandomlychosenfroma listcontainingtheeartagnumbersofallsuitablecalves beforeenteringthebarn. Somefarmshad concentrated calvingandhencethefiveanimalswereapproximatelythe sameage.Otherfarmshadspreadcalvingresultinginup tosixmonthsagedifferencesinthetestanimals.

2.2. Thequalitativebehaviourassessment—Stockperson

The first QBA was performed to determine the

behaviourofthestockperson.Thestockpersonwasblind tothepurposeof thestudyand therefore,eventhough theobservercouldinterferewiththeusualfarm manage-ment,a“true”stockpersonmanagementbehaviourcould beexpectedtobeobserved.Thestockpersonwasasked todo a chest measurement onfive calvessuccessively, anddataishencebasedon5×110=550interactions.In additiontoobtainingcalfweightstheobservermonitored thebehaviourofthehumaninhis/her interactionswith thecalves.Aftertheobservationperiodhadfinished,the observerscored,frommemory,thebodylanguageofthe stockpersonaccordingalistof17descriptorsonavisual analoguescale(VAS).Thedescriptorsincludedinthe stock-personQBAwere:quick,dominating,aggressive,fearful, patient,careful,calm,determined,focused,insecure, care-less,talkstotheanimals,cuddlestheanimals,inventive, nervous,boisterousandincluding.Afterthetesthadended, thestockpersonwasinformedofthesecondobjectiveof thestudyandwasaskedforpermissiontousethedata.All 110participantsconsented.

2.3. Thequalitativebehaviourassessment—Calf

The second QBA was carried out to evaluate the behaviourofdairycalvesonthe110farms.Accordingto standardtestprocedure,theobserverstudiedtheanimals for10–20minandthenassessedtheanimals’behavioural expressionbyscoringthemonagivenlistof31descriptors onaVAS.Toavoidfurtherinfluencefromtheanimals,this wasdoneinanotherroom/sectionofthebarn.The descrip-torsincludedin thecalf QBAwere:nervous,frustrated, fearful,enjoying,distressed,uncomfortable,friendly, con-tent,sociable, uneasy, calm,confident, agitated, unwell, happy, scared, positively occupied, relaxed, boisterous, inquisitive, playful, tense, aggressive, bored, depressed, active,lively,irritable,vigilant,apathetic,indifferentand welfareoverall.Thetermsusedinourstudywerethesame terms as used in Welfare Quality®_{, but as the} descrip-tor“welfareoverall”includesnon-animalenvironmental features,thisitemwasexcludedfromtheanalyses,as rec-ommended(Wemelsfelderetal.,2009a).

2.4. Statisticalanalyses

Foranalysis,theVASwasconvertedintoa125mmlong lineandthedistancefromtheleft-handsideoftheVASto thelinedrawnbytheobserverwasmeasured,givingthe scoreforthatdescriptor.Tocreateclearlydefinedhandling styleswithoptimalfactor loading,thestockperson QBA

wasfurtheranalysedusingPrincipalComponentAnalysis (PCA)withVarimaxrotationon10 descriptors.To com-plywiththestandardwayofanalysinganimalQBAs(e.g. Andreasenetal.,2013;Phythianetal.,2013),all31items wereincludedinthecalfQBAanalysiswithnorotation per-formed.Thefactorscoresofeachindividualhandlingstyle, alongwiththefactorscoresofthetwodimensionsofcalf behaviour,wereusedasseparatevariablesinastructural equationmodel(SEM)(Byrne,2010).Thesuitabilityofboth QBAscaleswereanalysedusingtheKaiser–Meyer–Olkin measureofsamplingadequacy.

Severalfitindiceswereutilizedtoevaluatethe suitabil-ityoftheSEM.First,normedChisquare(X2_{/df)waschosen} overtraditionalChi-squarestatistics(X2_{),asittakesinto} considerationthecomplexityofthemodelandisless sen-sitivetosamplesize.ThenormedChisquareshouldbeless than2(SchumackerandLomax,2004).Second,the Com-parativeFitIndex(CFI)wasused.Withthismeasure,values above 0.90 and 0.95 indicatesacceptable and good fit, respectively(Byrne,2010).Lastly,theRootMean-Square ErrorofApproximation(RMSEA)wasutilized.RMSEA val-uesoflessthan0.05indicategoodfit(Byrne,2010).

AllstatisticalanalyseswereperformedusingSPSSv.20. TheSEMwascreatedusingAMOSv.20.

3. Results

3.1. Principalcomponentanalysis(PCA)

PriortoperformingPCA,thesuitabilityofbothscalesfor factoranalysiswasassessed.Inspectionofthecorrelation matrixrevealedamajorityofcoefficientsof0.3andabove. TheKaiser–Meyer–Olkinvaluewas0.77forthe stockper-sonQBAand0.89forthecalfQBA,hencebothexceeding therecommendedvalueof0.6.Bartlett’sTestofSphericity reachedstatisticalsignificanceforbothscales,supporting thefactorabilityofthecorrelationmatrices.

3.2. Thequalitativebehaviourassessment—Stockperson

Principalcomponent analysiswithextractionoffour componentsexplained 25.5%,24.4%, 18.1% and16.9% of thevariance,respectively.Toaidintheinterpretationof thesefourcomponentsVarimaxrotationwasperformed (Table1).

PCA analysis revealed four relevant handling styles termed;calm/patient(PC1),dominating/aggressive(PC2), positiveinteractions(PC3)andinsecure/nervous(PC4).A stockpersonwhohaspositiveinteractionsactivelyengages incontactwiththeanimals,talkingcalmlyand/or touch-ingandpettingthem.Bycalm/patientisimpliedthatthe stockpersontreatstheanimalsinaquietandcarefulway, withoutrushingorstressingthem.Thishandlingstyledoes not,however,inferthesamedegreeofclosenessorpassion aspositiveinteractions.Adominating/aggressivehandling styleholdsthatthestockpersonisnoisy,rowdyand force-ful whenhandlingtheanimals,whilethefinalhandling style,insecure/nervous,aimstoportraya personwhois uncomfortableworkingwithcalvesandshowsanxiousor apprehensivebehaviour.Thetwoformerhandlingstyles

Table1

Thetableshowshowthe10stockpersonbehaviourscores(QBA)aregroupedinfourhandlingsstyles(PC1–4).Theitemswereanalysedusingprincipal componentanalysiswithVarimaxrotation.

Item PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 Communalities Calm 0.914 −0.210 0.125 −0.046 0.897 Careful 0.889 −0.289 0.183 0.104 0.918 Patient 0.741 −0.401 0.366 −0.035 0.845 Dominating −0.175 0.882 −0.177 −0.138 0.858 Boisterous −0.350 0.818 −0.140 0.110 0.823 Aggressive −0.373 0.717 −0.038 0.290 0.739

Talkstotheanimals 0.174 −0.062 0.892 0.029 0.832

Cuddlestheanimals 0.191 −0.184 0.882 −0.038 0.849

Insecure 0.096 −0.165 −0.026 0.916 0.877

Nervous −0.093 0.352 0.024 0.845 0.848

Note:Loadings>±0.30foreachitemarebolded.

(PC1and PC3)canbeviewedaspositive, thetwo latter (PC2andPC4)asnegative.

3.3. Thequalitativebehaviourassessment—Calf

Principalcomponentsanalysiswithextractionoftwo components was performed.The two factors explained 45.4% and 15.7% of the variance. To comply with the standardizedwayofanalysingQBAdata,norotationwas performed.Aloadingplotshowingtherelationshipamong thecalfQBAdescriptorsisgiveninFig.1.

PCAanalysisrevealedtwodimensionsofcalfbehaviour labelled positive/negative mood (PC1) and high/low arousal(PC2)(Table2.

Distinctclusteringsalongtwoaxeswerediscoveredin thecalf QBAdata.AnimalsreceivinglowscoresonPC1 (Mood) havehighlevelsof positivedescriptorsandlow levelsofnegativedescriptors,whileanimalsreceivinghigh scoresontheaxishavehighlevelsofnegativedescriptors and lowlevelsofpositive descriptors.Mooddescriptors caneitherbehighorlowinarousal,asreflectedbytheir locationrelativetothePC2(Arousal)axis.

3.4. Structuralequationmodelling

Basedontheexpectedrelationshipsbetween stockper-sonbehaviourandcalfbehaviourastructuralmodelwas developedandtestedusingSEM(Fig.2).

All pathwayswere significant at the 0.05 level. The first endogenous variable, positive/negative mood, had four direct pathwaysfromexogenous variables. In des-cendingorderormagnitude,thesepathwaysreflectedthe influenceofpositiveinteractions(ˇ=−0.41),calm/patient (ˇ=−0.28), insecure/nervous (ˇ=0.25), and dominat-ing/aggressive (ˇ=0.23). Combined these fourvariables accountfor36%ofthevarianceinpositive/negativemood withinthecontextofthemodel.Thesecondendogenous variable, high/low arousal, also had four direct path-ways fromexogenous variables, reflecting theinfluence of insecure/nervous (ˇ=−30), calm/patient (ˇ=−0.25), dominating/aggressive(ˇ=0.23),andpositiveinteractions (_ˇ=0.20) in descending order of magnitude. Combined these fourvariables account for 24% of thevariance in high/lowarousalwithinthecontextofthemodel.

Putdifferently,resultsshowedthatastockpersonwho interacts with the animals through gently petting and

Table2

Thetableshowshowthe31calfbehaviourscores(QBA)aregroupedin twodimensions(PC1–2)representingmoodandarousal.Theitemswere analysedusingPrincipalcomponentanalysiswithoutrotation.

Item PC1 PC2 Communalities Nervous 0.837 0.378 0.664 Frustrated 0.816 0.240 0.479 Fearful 0.816 0.247 0.658 Enjoying −0.814 0.250 0.726 Distressed 0.806 −0.001 0.721 Uncomfortable 0.805 −0.100 0.617 Friendly −0.803 0.134 0.192 Content −0.793 0.402 0.579 Sociable −0.775 0.157 0.292 Uneasy 0.773 0.345 0.637 Calm −0.761 −0.010 0.791 Confident −0.759 0.201 0.473 Agitated 0.756 0.386 0.725 Unwell 0.745 −0.026 0.345 Happy −0.740 0.542 0.723 Scared 0.734 0.440 0.662 Positivelyoccupied −0.713 0.487 0.279 Relaxed −0.689 −0.068 0.718 Boisterous 0.676 0.506 0.746 Inquisitive −0.666 0.202 0.555 Playful −0.657 0.535 0.735 Tense 0.620 0.298 0.732 Aggressive 0.505 0.191 0.485 Bored 0.458 −0.264 0.631 Depressed 0.435 −0.051 0.843 Active 0.063 0.812 0.713 Lively −0.348 0.783 0.716 Irritable 0.550 0.574 0.625 Vigilant 0.556 0.573 0.401 Apathetic 0.291 −0.562 0.842 Indifferent 0.265 −0.524 0.650

Note:Loadings>±0.30foreachitemarebolded.

talkingcalmlyhavecalveswithahigherdegreeofpositive mood,ascharacterizedbyhighscoresonQBAitemslike friendly,contentandsociable.Thesameistruefor stock-peoplewhoarecalmandpatientwheninteractingwith theiranimals.Stockpersonswhohaveanervousor inse-curehandlingstyle,orstockpeoplewhoshowdominating oraggressivebehaviourincontactwiththecalves,have morenegativemoodamongtheanimals,ascharacterized byhighscoresonQBAitemslikenervous,frustratedand fearful.

The fit statistics indicated an almost perfect fit of themodeltothedata(X2 _{(7)=0.78,p>0.05,X}2_/df=0.11, CFI=1.0,RMSEA=0.00).

Fig.1.This2-dimensionalloadingplotshowstherelationshipamongthe31QBAitemsdescribingcalfbehaviouronPC1(Mood)andPC2(Arousal).Alow scoreonPC1indicatespositivemood,whileahighscoreindicatesnegativemood.AlowscoreonPC2indicateslowlevelsofarousal,whileahighscore indicateshigharousal.

Fig.2. Thisfigureshowshowthefourstockpersonhandlingstyles(PC1–4)relatetothetwodimensionsofcalfbehaviour(PC1–2).Astructuralequation modelwithstandardizedregressionweights(B)isused.R2_{valuesaregivenforeachofthetwodependentvariables.e1ande2denotesmeasurementerror} associatedwithobservedvariables.

4. Discussion

4.1. Stockpersonbehaviour

Inthecurrentstudy,fourrelevanthandlingstyleswere identified, termed positive interactions, calm/patient, dominating/aggressive, and insecure/nervous. Other research papers have characterized handler behaviour similar to the dimensions the current study. In 2002, Waiblinger et al. investigated therelationship between attitudes,personalcharacteristicsandbehaviourof stock-persons and subsequent behaviour and production of dairycows.Intheirstudy,positivestockpersonbehaviour wasusedasa collectivetermtodescribehandlerswho talkedquietly, pettedor touchedthecattle (Waiblinger etal.,2002).(Lensinketal.,2000,2001)alsoused‘positive farmers’contactswithcalves’tocharacterizefarmerswho petted,touched,andtalkedtothecalvesinafriendly man-ner.Negativeoraversivestockpersonbehaviourisoften characterizedbyhitting,slappingandloudvocalizations (e.g.Munksgaardetal.,1997;Waiblingeretal.,2002).No forcefultactileinteractionswereobservedinthecurrent study.

4.2. Calfbehaviour

Two dimensions of calf behaviour, positive/negative moodandhigh/lowarousal,weredetectedinthecurrent analyses.Variations of thesedimensions are commonly seen in QBA studies. Following Free Choice Profiling and generalized procrustes analysis(GPA), Rousing and Wemelsfelder(2006)foundtwomaindimensions associ-atedwithsocialbehaviourexpressionindairycattle.The firstdimensionwascharacterizedasrelaxed/calmversus aggressive/bullyingandthesecondaspassive/indifferent versus playful/sociable. Reliable clustering along two dimensions was also reported by Wemelsfelder et al. (2009a), based on the same QBA items as the current study. Looking at QBA data for dairy cattle, beef bulls and veal calves, the authors reported that one dimen-siondistinguishedbetweenpositiveandnegativemood, while the otherdimension discriminated betweenhigh andlowlevelsofarousalinthesemoods(Wemelsfelder et al.,2009a).AnItalianstudylookingtointegrateQBA withclinical/healthprotocolsinvealcalvesalsofoundone dimension associated with positive and negative mood descriptors, whiletheotherdimensionrelated to activ-ity and boredom (Brscic et al., 2009). In yet another recentstudy,Andreasenetal.(2013)twoQBAdimensions were alsoidentified, one characterized bycalm/relaxed touneasy/agitated,theotherbyindifferent/distressedto lively/playful. SimilardimensionsarealsofoundinQBA studiesonpigs(Wemelsfelderetal.,2001;Rutherfordetal., 2012)andsheep(Phythianetal.,2013).

4.3. Theeffectofstockpersonbehaviouroncalfbehaviour

Ourresultssupportthepreviouslyrecognized relation-ship betweenstockperson handlingstyleand calfmood andlevelofarousal.Waiblingeretal.(2006)statethat“the stockpersons’behaviourisamajorvariabledetermining

animals’fearoforconfidenceinhumanbeingsand,hence, thequalityoftheHAR”. Itis wellestablishedthatcows (Munksgaard et al., 1997) and dairy calves (de Passille etal.,1996)candiscriminatebetweenhandlersbasedon treatment, as seen by avoidance behaviour. Cows that experienceahighpercentageofpositiveinteractions (talk-ing quietly, petting and touching) and low percentage of negative interactions (forceful use of stick or hand, shoutingandimpatienttalk)withhandlersinthemilking parlour,werefoundtoavoidhumansless(Waiblingeretal., 2002).Cows,however,keptagreaterdistancetothe han-dler,aswellasurinatedanddefecatedmorefrequently, followingaversivetreatment(strikingthecowforcefully withopenhand)(Munksgaardetal.,1997).Lowerlevels ofwithdrawalisalsoassociatedwithpositivecontact (pet-ting,touching,talkinginafriendlymanner)betweencalves andhandlers,asshownbyLensinketal.(2001).Hemsworth andColeman(1998)haveshownthatwithdrawalis asso-ciated with fear in the animals, and behaviour by the stockpeoplecausingwithdrawalishenceassociatedwith pooranimal welfare.Ourfindingsconfirmtheseresults. AhighscoreonQBAdescriptorsliketense,fearful,scared andnervous,loadinghighonthenegativemood dimen-sionisthereforeassociatedwithaggressive/dominatingas wellasinsecure/nervoushandlers.Descriptorslike confi-dent,calm,andfriendly,ontheotherhand,loadinghigh onthepositivemooddimension,isassociatedwith han-dlerswhoarecalm/patientandtouchesandtalkstothe calves.

Alinkbetweeninsecureandnervoushandlersandtense and fearful animals has also been suggested in horses (HallmanandDemmin,2005).Fearandnervousnessin ani-malsisassociatedwithstressandreducedanimalwelfare (Rushenetal.,1999).Inaddition,nervousanimalsaremore unpredictableandunsafetohandle,henceincreasingthe riskofinjurytothemselvesorthestockperson(Hemsworth andColeman,1998;Rushenetal.,1999).Waiblingeretal. (2006)alsosuggestthatanegativefeedbackcyclemight beestablishedbetweentheanimalsand theircaretaker wherebytheattitudesandbehaviourofthehandler wors-enswithsubsequentincreasesinfearofhumansamong theanimals.Thiscouldperhapsalsobethecaseinour sam-ple.Ifhandlerswhoareinsecure/nervousexperiencemore negativemoodintheirherds,theymayfeeltheneedtouse dominating/aggressivebehaviourtocontroltheanimals.

Inaccordancewithcurrentresults,anumberof stud-ieshavealsofoundstockpersonbehaviourtoinfluencethe levelofarousalin theanimals.Theuseofnegative tac-tileinteractions,loudharshvocalisationsandhighspeed of movement among the handlers when moving cows have been found to be positively correlated with rest-lessnessin theanimals(Breueret al.,2000).Waiblinger etal.(2002)alsosuggest thatpositive, calming interac-tionsmightreducetheactivitylevelincattle.Thiswasnot supportedinthecurrentstudyasallfourhandlingstyles werepositivelyrelatedtohigharousalintheanimals.A reasonforthis maybethatthetwostudiesabovewere conductedonadult cattle,while ourobservations were basedoncalves. Growncattle spend about5–8h rumi-natingandrestlyingforabout10–12hper24h(Ekesbo, 2011),implyingthatlowactivitylevelsaredesirable.The

calvesinoursample,ontheotherhand,wereagedbetween 1and9months,meaningthat moreplaybehaviourcan beexpected(Bekoff,2001).Itisalsolikelythatcalvesare moreeasilyarousedbyhandlers,incontrasttoadultcattle thathavebeenhabituatedtohumansoverseveralyears. Accordingto Wemelsfelder et al. (2009a), arousal does notdirectlyinfluencewelfare.Thedimensioninsteadhas animportantfunction ingiving a meaningfultransition betweenpositiveandnegativemoodonthefirst dimen-sion,andhenceaddstotheinformationonanimalwelfare givenbythemooddimension.

4.4. Thevalidityofqualitativebehaviourassessment

During recent years, QBA has been used to evalu-atecattlewelfare, moodand behaviour ina number of ways,includingpre-slaughterbehaviourinAngussteers (Stockmanetal.,2012),stressduringtransport(Stockman etal.,2011)andsocialbehaviourindairycows(Rousing andWemelsfelder,2006).Moreandmorepapersarealso beingpublishedcorrelatingQBAwithphysiological meas-ures(Stockmanetal.,2011,2012;Rutherfordetal.,2012; Wickhametal.,2012)andsuggestingthatthemethodcan detectsubtledifferencesequaltoorbeyondwhat quan-titativemeasurescandetect(Wemelsfelderetal.,2001). Superiorabilitytopickupsmallchangesbetweenherds wasalsoonepotentialexplanationforwhyAndreasenetal. (2013) failed to find meaningful relationships between QBA scores and other Welfare Quality® _{measures (see} Andreasenetal.,2013fordiscussion).Twostudies pub-lished in 2009 concluded that rearing environment for pigs(Wemelsfelderetal.,2009b)andvealcalves(Brscic etal.,2009)didnot distortobservercharacterizationof behaviourexpression.Ithasalsobeenshownthatdiverging backgrounds,experienceandviewsdonothavenegative effectoninter-orintra-observerreliability(Wemelsfelder etal.,2012).TheuseofQBAasameasureofwelfareon pro-ductionanimalshashencebeenvalidatedbythosegroups. Conversely,QBAofstockpersonbehaviourisnoveland hasso far not been validated. It is impossible without validationtoknowhowe.g.attitudes,demographicsand societal norms influence stockperson QBA scores. This uncertaintyisthereasonwhystockpersonQBAwas ana-lyseddifferentlythanthecalfQBA.While thelatterwas analysedinaccordancewithotherQBAstudies(allitems, no rotation), well-defined and relevant handling styles were created through Varimax rotation of certain QBA descriptorsinordertooptimizefactorloadings.Basedon thesignificantassociationsalsofoundinotherstudies,our studyhasshownpromisingpotentialofthestockperson QBAtopredictanimalbehaviour.

5. Conclusionsandimplications

Ourfindingssuggestthathumanandanimalbehaviour arecloselylinked.Thisunderlinesthesignificanceofgood stockmanship.Notonlypropereducationofstockpersons butalsoawarenessofone’sownbehaviourisessentialfor thoseworkingwithlivestock.Theknowledgegeneratedin thisstudyalsoallowsustotailorattitudeandbehaviour changeinterventionstostockpersons,whichinturnmay

causeadvancementsintheHARandultimatelyleadtoa higherlevelofanimalwelfare.

Acknowledgement

Theauthorswouldliketoexpresstheirgratitudeto Pet-terStanghovforconductingthefarmvisits.Wewillalso thankFrancoiseWemelsfelderforhelpfulcomments.The projectwasfinancedbytheNorwegianVeterinary Insti-tute.

References

Andreasen,S.N.,Wemelsfelder,F.,Sandøe,P.,Forkman,B.,2013.The cor-relationofqualitativebehaviorassessmentswithwelfarequality®

protocoloutcomesinon-farmwelfare.assessmentofdairycattle. Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.143,9–17.

Bekoff,M.,2001.Socialplaybehaviour.Cooperation,fairness,trust,and theevolutionofmoralit.J.Conscious.Stud.8,81–90.

Bertenshaw,C.,Rowlinson,P.,Edge,H.,Douglas,S.,Shiel,R.,2008.The effectofdifferentdegreesof‘positive’human–animalinteraction dur-ingrearingonthewelfareandsubsequent.Productionofcommercial dairyheifers.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.114,65–75.

Breuer,K.,Hemsworth,P.H.,Barnett,J.L.,Matthews,L.R.,Coleman,G.J., 2000.Behaviouralresponsetohumansandtheproductivityof com-mercialdairycows.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.66,273–288.

Breuer,K.,Hemsworth,P.H.,Coleman,G.J.,2003.Theeffectofpositiveor negativehandlingonthebehaviouralandphysiologicalresponsesof nonlactatingheifers.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.84,3–22.

Brscic, M.,Wemelsfelder,F.,Tessitore,E.,Gottardo,F.,Cozzi,G.,Van Reenen,C.G.,2009.Welfareassessment:correlationsandintegration betweenaqualitativebehaviouralassessmentandaclinical/health protocolappliedinvealcalvesfarms.Ital.J.Anim.Sci.8,601–603. Byrne,B.M.,2010.StructuralEquationModelingWithAMOS:Basic

Con-cepts,ApplicationsandProgramming,seconded.Hoboken,NJ,Taylor andFrancis.

Coleman,G.J.,Hemsworth,P.H.,Hay,M.,1998.Predictingstockperson behaviourtowardspigsfromattitudinalandjob-relatedvariablesand empathy.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.58,63–75.

dePassille,A.M.,Rushen,J.,Ladewig,J.,Petherick,C.,1996.Dairycalves’ discriminationofpeoplebasedonprevioushandling.J.Anim.Sci.74, 969–974.

Ekesbo,I.,2011.FarmAnimalBehaviour:CharacteristicsforAssessment ofHealthandWelfare.CABI,Wallingford.

Ellingsen,K.,Zanella,A.J.,Bjerkås,E.,Indrebø,A.,2010.The relation-shipbetweenempathy,perceptionofpainandattitudestowardpets amongNorwegiandogowners.Anthrozoôs23,231–243.

Estep,D.Q.,Hetts,S.,1992.Interactionsrelationshipsandbonds:the con-ceptualbasisforscientist-animalrelations.In:Davis,H.,Balfour,D. (Eds.),TheInevitableBond:ExaminingScientist–AnimalInteractions. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge;NewYork,NY,pp.6–26. Hallman,E.,Demmin,D.M.,2005.Animalhandlingsafety.In:NationalAG

SafetyDatabase.

Haskell,M.J.,Rennie,L.J.,Bowell,V.A.,Wemelsfelder,F.,Lawrence,A.B., 2003.On-farmassessmentoftheeffectofmanagementand hous-ingtypeonbehaviourandwelfareindairycattle.Anim.Welfare12, 553–556.

Hemsworth,P.H.,2003.Human-animalinteractionsinlivestock produc-tion.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.81,185–198.

Hemsworth,P.H.,Barnett,J.L.,Hansen,C.,1981a.Theinfluenceofhandling byhumansonthebehavior,growth,andcorticosteroidsinthejuvenile femalepig.Horm.Behav.15,396–403.

Hemsworth,P.H.,Barnett,J.L.,Hansen,C.,1986.Theinfluenceofhandling byhumansonthebehaviour,reproductionandcorticosteroidsofmale andfemalepigs.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.15,303–314.

Hemsworth,P.H.,Brand,A.,Willems,P.,1981b.Thebehaviouralresponse ofsowstothepresenceofhumanbeingsanditsrelationto produc-tivity.Livest.Prod.Sci.8,67–74.

Hemsworth,P.H.,Coleman,G.J.,1998.Human–LivestockInteractions:The StockpersonandtheProductivityofIntensivelyFarmedAnimals.CAB International,Wallingford,UK.

Hemsworth,P.H.,Coleman,G.J.,Barnett,J.L.,Borg,S.,2000.Relationships betweenhuman–animalinteractionsandproductivityofcommercial dairycows.J.Anim.Sci.78,2821–2831.

Lensink,B.J.,Veissier,I.,Florand, L.,2001. Thefarmers’influenceon calves’behaviour,healthandproductionofavealunit.Anim.Sci.72, 105–116.

Lensink,J.,Biossy,A.,Veissier,I.,2000.Therelationshipbetweenfarmers’ attitudeandbehaviourtowardscalves,andproductivityofvealunits. Ann.Zootech.49,313–327.

Marinelli,L.,Adamelli,S.,Normando,S.,Bono,G.,2007.Qualityoflifeof thepetdog:influenceofowneranddog’scharacteristics.Appl.Anim. Behav.Sci.108,143–156.

Munksgaard,L.,DePassille,A.M.,Rushen,J.,Thodberg,K.,Jensen,M.B., 1997.Discriminationofpeoplebydairycowsbasedonhandling.J. DairySci.80,1106–1112.

Napolitano,F.,DeRosa,G.,Braghieri,A.,Grasso,F.,Bordi,A.,Wemelsfelder, F.,2008.Thequalitativeassessmentofresponsivenessto environ-mentalchallengeinhorsesandponies.Appl.AnimBehav.Sci.109, 342–354.

Napolitano,F.,DeRosa,G.,Grasso,F.,Wemelsfelder,F.,2012.Qualitative behaviourassessmentofdairybuffaloes(Bubalusbubalis).Appl.Anim. Behav.Sci.141(3–4),91–100.

Phythian,C.,Michalopoulou,E.,Duncan,J.,Wemelsfelder,F.,2013. Inter-observerreliabilityofqualitativebehaviouralassessmentsofsheep. Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.144,73–79.

Rousing, T.,Wemelsfelder,F.,2006. Qualitative assessment ofsocial behaviourofdairycowshousedinloosehousingsystems.Appl.Anim. Behav.Sci.101,40–53.

Rushen,J.,Taylor,A.A.,dePassillé,A.M.,1999.Domesticanimals’fearof humansanditseffectontheirwelfare.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.65, 285–303.

Rutherford,K.M.D.,Donald,R.D.,Lawrence,A.B.,Wemelsfelder,F.,2012. Qualitative behaviouralassessmentofemotionalityinpigs.Appl. Anim.Behav.Sci.139,218–224.

Schumacker,R.E.,Lomax,R.G.,2004.ABeginner’sGuidetoStructural EquationModeling,seconded.LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,Inc., NewJersey.

Simensen,E.,2004.Animalcare—thehumanfactorinanimalproduction. NorskVeterinærtidsskrift[inNorwegian]116,5–10.

Statistics-Norway, 2013. Husdyrhald, 1. januar 2013, førebelse tal, https://www.ssb.no/jord-skog-jakt-og-fiskeri/statistikker/jordhus, Accessed02.02.2014.

Stockman,C.A.,Collins,T.,Barnes,A.L.,Miller,D.,Wickham,S.L.,Beatty, D.T.,Blache,D.,Wemelsfelder,F.,Fleming,P.A.,2011. Qualitative behaviouralassessmentandquantitativephysiologicalmeasurement ofcattlenaïveandhabituatedtoroadtransport.Anim.Prod.Sci.51, 240–249.

Stockman,C.A.,McGilchrist,P.,Collins,T.,Barnes,A.L.,Miller,D.,Wickham, S.L.,Greenwood,P.L.,Cafe,L.M.,Blache,D.,Wemelsfelder,F.,Fleming, P.A.,2012.Qualitativebehaviouralassessmentofangussteers dur-ingpre-slaughterhandlingandrelationshipwithtemperamentand physiologicalresponses.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci142,125–133. Tine, 2012. Tine Rådgiving Statistikksamling 2012. In:

Roalkvam, T. (Ed.), https://medlem.tine.no/cms/om-oss/statistikker/attachment/297302?ts=13d92495db0.

Waiblinger,S.,Boivin,X.,Pedersen,V.,Tosi,M.-V.,Janczak,A.M.,Visser, E.K.,Jones,R.B.,2006.Assessingthehuman–animalrelationshipin farmedspecies:acriticalreview.Appl.AnimBehav.Sci.101,185–242. Waiblinger,S.,Menke,C.,Coleman,G.,2002.Therelationshipbetween attitudes,personalcharacteristicsandbehaviourofstockpeopleand subsequentbehaviourandproductionofdairycows.Appl.Anim. Behav.Sci.79,195–219.

WelfareQuality,2009.Anoverviewofthedevelopmentofthe wel-farequalityassessmentsystems.In:Keeling,L.(Ed.),WelfareQuality ReportsNo.12.CardiffUniversity,UK.

Wemelsfelder,F.,Hunter,A.E.,Paul,E.S.,Lawrence,A.B.,2012.Assessing pigbodylanguage:agreementandconsistencybetweenpigfarmers, veterinarians,andanimalactivists.J.AnimSci.90,3652–3665. Wemelsfelder,F., Hunter, T.E.A., Mendl, M.T., Lawrence, A.B.,2001.

Assessingthe‘wholeanimal’:afreechoiceprofilingapproach.Anim. Behav.62,209–220.

Wemelsfelder,F.,Lawrence,A.B.,2001.Qualitativeassessmentofanimal behaviourasanon-farmwelfare-monitoringtool.ActaAgric.Scand. Sect.A51,21–25.

Wemelsfelder,F.,Millard,F.,Rosa,G.D.,Napolitano,F.,2009a.Qualitative behaviourassessment.In:Forkman,B.,Keeling,L.(Eds.),Assessment ofAnimalWelfareMeasuresforDairyCattle,BeefBullsandVeal Calves.CardiffUniversity,UK,pp.215–224.

Wemelsfelder, F., Nevison, I., Lawrence, A.B., 2009b. The effect of perceivedenvironmentalbackgroundonqualitativeassessmentsof pigbehaviour.Anim.Behav.78,477–484.

Wickham,S.L.,Collins,T.,Barnes,A.L.,Miller,D.W.,Beatty,D.T.,Stockman, C.,Blache,D.,Wemelsfelder,F.,Fleming,P.A.,2012.Qualitative behav-ioralassessmentoftransport-naïveandtransport-habituatedsheep. J.Anim.Sci.90,4523–4535.

Windschnurer,I.,Schmied,C.,Boivin,X.,Waiblinger,S.,2008.Reliability andinter-testrelationshipoftestsforon-farmassessmentofdairy cows’relationshiptohumans.Appl.Anim.Behav.Sci.114,37–53. Østerås,O.,Solbu,H.,Refsdal,A.O.,Roalkvam,T.,Filseth,O.,Minsaas,A.,

2007.Resultsandevaluationofthirtyyearsofhealthrecordingsinthe norwegiandairycattlepopulation.J.DairySci.90,4483–4497.